April 23, 2011

Genetic structure of West Eurasians

I have decided to generate a new major data dump of ADMIXTURE results. In comparison to previous such experiments:

The focus is entirely on West Eurasians (Caucasoids).

I have excluded all potential relatives from the source datasets, as well as several populations that tend to create uninformative clusters of their own (e.g., Druze or Ashkenazi Jews); exceptions are populations of great anthropological interest (e.g., Basques).

I have included all relevant Dodecad Ancestry Project populations with 5+ participants.

I have developed a new way of "framing" the region of interest by choosing appropriate sets of individuals from outside of it.

"Framing" populations

I have, since the beginning of my ADMIXTURE experiments, emphasized the importance of including appropriate population controls designed to squeeze out minor distant admixture in populations of interest, so that it does not confound the inference of region-specific components.

This leads to a problem: there are many possible sources of admixture. For example, we do not know a priori which set of African populations may have contributed to Caucasoid populations, or which set of East Asian ones. We could choose e.g., the Yoruba and the Chinese to represent Sub-Saharans and East Asians, but that might exclude possible sources of variation, and lead to Yoruba- and Chinese- specific clusters rather than more general Sub-Saharan and East Asian ones. If we included more population controls, we would cover more possible sources of variation, but ADMIXTURE would infer components of little interest (e.g., between Pygmies vs. Bushmen or Mongols vs. Chinese)

To avoid this, I propose to create meta-populations consisting of a single individual from many populations, i.e., a Yoruba, a Mandenka, a San, a Mbuti Pygmy, etc. for Sub-Saharan Africa, or a Miaozu, a Han, a Mongol, a She, a Hezhen, etc. for East Asia. That way we are both helping ADMIXTURE infer general components, while at the same time preventing it from inferring non-region specific ones.

Results

The entirety of the results presented here can be downloaded. They include:

At K=3, we observe the emergence West Eurasian, Sub-Saharan, and East/South Asian components.

The impact of the Sub-Saharan component is felt most distinctly in North Africa and the Near East, especially among Arabs; the impact of the East/South Asian one in West Asia and Northeastern Europe, especially among Finnic and Turkic speakers.

It is interesting to note that 39.8% of the Indian_D sample is assigned to the E/S Asian component. I had previously estimated in a roundabout way, and in a slightly smaller sample that the Ancestral South Indian component in Project participants was 33.3%, so ADMIXTURE has roughly managed to infer correctly that about 1/3 of this Indian sample's ancestry is more closely related to East Asians than to West Eurasians.

At K=4, the first split within the Caucasoid group appears: a component centered onn Europe, and one on West/South Asia.

Many populations possess both these components in clinal proportions.

The European component shrinks to insignificance in Arabians, such as Saudis and Yemenese.

The West/South Asian component shrinks to insignificance in Northeast Europeans, such as Finns, Lithuanians, north Russians, and Chuvash.

At K=5, a new Mediterranean component emerges. This is highly represented in populations to the North, South, and East of the Mediterranean sea.

This component is noteworthy for its absence in India and Northeastern Europe.

In Northeastern Europe, the Mediterranean component is hardly represented at all, whereas the West/South Asian component, freed of its K=4 Mediterranean associations now makes its appearance.

Conversely, in the West Mediterranean, among Basques, Sardinians, Moroccans, and Mozabites the West/South Asian component vanishes to non-existence.

At K=6, a North African component emerges.

Notice its presence in the Near East and parts of Southern Europe.

The two regions can be contrasted in terms of their African components, with very high North/Sub-Saharan African ratio in Europe vs. much lower in the Near East.

The explanation for this seems straightforward, as Europe was affected by North Africa in prehistoric and historic times, whereas the Near East also shares a border with more southern parts of the African continent, as well as the potential influence of the medieval slave trade that seems to have affected Muslim Near Eastern populations disproportionately.

At K=7, a Southwest Asian component emerges which is highest in Arabia and East Africa. I could've called this Red Sea, but I've reserved this name for a similar component that emerges at higher K.

It is clear that this is the main Caucasoid component present in East Africa.

It vanishes to non-existence in the Northern fringe of Europe, in the British Isles, Scandinavia, and among the Finns and Lithuanians.

Another interesting aspect of its distribution is its presence in Pakistan but not India. Perhaps, in this case, it reflects historical contacts between the Islamic Near East and parts of South Asia.

At K=8, we observe most of the familiar components from the K=10 analysis of the Dodecad Project. However, the use of the framing populations has meant that these components emerge before either Africans or East Eurasians split.

Now, the South Asian component appears, which swallows up most of the E/S Asian component that previously linked South with East Asians. This component extends a great way to the Near East and eastern parts of the Caucasus.

Quite interestingly, the remainder of the Caucasoid component in South Asia that is not absorbed by the new South Asian component seems to be split between the West Asian and North/Central European components, with an absence of the South European component.

It is among the Lezgins of the Caucasus that such a combination occurs, on the western shore of the Caspian Sea. The same combination of Caucasoid components also occurs in Uzbeks and Chuvash.

I conclude from this that the Caucasoids who entered South and Central Asia were probably derived from the eastern fringes of the Caucasoid world where only the West Asian (in the south) and North/Central European (in the north) are in existence. The area around the Caspian Sea seems like an excellent candidate for their origin, as I have speculated before, as that region has two important properties:

It is transitional between predominantly N/C European populations to the north and predominantly W Asian populations to the south

It is the border of the influence of the S European element, with Georgians possessing some of it, while Lezgins do not.

At K=9, we see the emergence of specific Sardinian and Basque components. Normally this is undesirable, but, I believe this breakup serves to divide the previously inferred South European component meaningfully.

What was South European in lower K seems to have an Atlantic vs. Mediterranean dimension, with the Basque/Sardinian ratio being particularly high in the Atlantic facade of Europe. Conversely, this ratio is low in the Mediterranean as we move eastwards: it is already low in Italy and the Balkans and becomes virtually zero in Cypriots, Armenians, and Levantine Arabs.

North Africa is also particularly interesting in having a low Basque/Sardinian rate, even in Morocco. It appears that Sardinians are a much better proxy of European influences in the region than Basques are.

K=10 is particularly exciting because, for the first time, there is clear evidence of structure in the North/Central European component that can now be split, for the first time, into Northwestern and Northeastern ones.

The NW European component is maximized in Orcadians, and people from the British Isles in general, as well as in Scandinavia.These populations have a low NE/NW ratio, as do the French, Iberians, and Italians.

Conversely, Balto-Slavs have a high NE/NW ratio.

Interestingly, Greeks have a balanced NE/NW ratio (1.2), intermediate between Italians and Balto-Slavs. Similar balanced ratios are also found among Lezgins (1.08), Turks, and Iranians. I conclude that Slavic or other Eastern European admixture cannot account for the totality of presence of this component in Greeks.

Indians have a 1.8 NE/NW ratio. In Pakistan this is 6.5, in Uzbeks it is 2.9, and in the North Eurasian_Ra it is 14.2. My conclusion is that a single migration of steppe people from eastern Europe cannot account for the presence of North European-like genes in Asia.

I propose that a palimpsest of population movements has brought such elements into the interior of Asia: the migration of the early Indo-Iranians from West Asia or the Balkans with a balanced NE/NW ratio, and, the migration of steppe people from Eastern Europe with a high NE/NW ratio. The latter, did affect much of Asia, but it is in India, where Iranian groups did not penetrate in great numbers the lower ratio of the Indo-Aryans has been best preserved.

The case of the Finns is also interesting, as there is a surplus of NE over NW European elements. Their position is intermediate between Scandinavians and Lithuanians/Russians but toward the latter. So, Finns appear to (i) have a substratum similar to Balto-Slavs, (ii) to be influenced by Scandinavians, and (iii) with a balance of East Eurasian elements (5.8% at this analysis) preserving the legacy of their linguistic ancestors from the east. At present it is difficult to determine how much of the NE European component in Finns is due to their eastern ancestors who were presumably mixed Caucasoid/Mongoloid long before they arrived in the Baltic, and how much was absorbed in situ.

At K=11 the Ethiopian/East African component emerges, absorbing some of the Red Sea and Sub-Saharan components from the previous K=10 run.

In comparison to the East African component of the Dodecad Project analysis, this component is closer to West Eurasians than to Sub-Saharan Africans, and a residual Sub-Saharan element remains in the two East African (Ethiopian and East_African_D) population samples. Presumably this is due to the more complete sampling of Sub-Saharan genetic diversity using the Sub_Saharan_H "framing" population.

Outside Africa, both E African/Sub-Saharan components are present in the Near East and North Africa with higher E African/Sub-Saharan ratios in the Near East and lower ones in North Africa.

In Europe, there are low such ratios in the few populations where African admixture is present, together with some N African. We can probably conclude that African admixture is mostly due to North Africans, and African-influenced Near Eastern populations, rather than directly from Sub-Saharan Africa.

At K=12 the first uninformative cluster emerged, centered on Iraqi Jews, hence I decided to stop the analysis at this point.

Population Portraits

There is a plethora of population portraits in the download bundle, showing how admixture proportions vary in individuals within populations, and how they vary between successive K.

Here is, for example, the K=11 portrait of Cypriots. A picture of overall homogeneity of this sample emerges, but notice how the NW European and NE European have disjoint presence in the Cypriot individuals, with 5 having some of the former, 6 having some of the latter, and only 1 of these having both.

Compare with Lezgins (right) where these two components occur in all individuals. Whatever this admixture represents, it must be old enough if it is so uniformly distributed in the population.

Here are the Georgians at K=10. Notice that their NE European component is unevenly distributed, and in every case where it occurs it is accompanied by a thin slice of East Asian. This may well indicate partial Russian or other Eastern European ancestry in these individuals.

Notice how Lezgins, who live north of the Caucasus mountains possess some of the N/C European component, which the Armenians, who live to the south of them lack. This should come as no surprise, as the Lezgins inhabit parts of the ancient Sarmatia Asiatica. Compare with Iranians, who are differentiated by their Indo-European Armenian neighbors by the presence of a "S Asian" component, which, in turn, ties them to their Indo-Aryan linguistic relatives.

Much more can be said, but I'll let readers explore the data on their own, and draw their own conclusions from them.

54 comments:

To avoid this, I propose to create meta-populations consisting of a single individual from many populations, i.e., a Yoruba, a Mandenka, a San, a Mbuti Pygmy, etc. for Sub-Saharan Africa, or a Miaozu, a Han, a Mongol, a She, a Hezhen, etc. for East Asia. That way we are both helping ADMIXTURE infer general components, while at the same time preventing it from inferring non-region specific ones.

I already advised you to do the same in the early days of your ADMIXTURE experiments.

Fantastic work! Did your British samples include people from England, Scotland and Wales or just England? It is just that the British and Irish results seem to be a little too similar considering that the Irish are Celtic and the English are Germanic. Again, well done!

The British and Irish seem to be basically the same people, and the Germans are pretty close as well.

This may mean that when the Germans invaded Celtic territories, they ethnically cleansed the Celtic men but mated with the Celtic women so that Germans in previously Celtic areas were really Germano-Celtic hybrids.

Only one question now, which is essential in a historical perspective. When you have earlier names the Asian admix in Finnish samples NE-Asian and now mostly East Asian, I wonder if it is now really East Asian or NE Asian ( in your terminology). IMO there is a big difference, in the population age between these population thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years, in distance thousands kilometers, culturally as huge as it can be. Have you ever checked f.ex. Nganasans aginst Northern European and Chinese references using IBS or genetic distance tools? This is really a principled issue, because Nganasasian family tribes have lived in the neighbor of Eastern Finns and Saamis after their westward movement.

Here is a (perhaps a little speculative) analysis with respect to North, Central, and Eastern Europe:

(part 1:)SW Asian basically does not appear (or is much lower than West Asian) in most of NW Europe - so it is quite clear that where it occurs in almost all of Europe, it is not part of an original agricultural inflow, but of much later origin (for example, Mediterranean seafaring/trade and Jewish immigration).

Having cleared that up, it is interesting to look at the different ratios of West Asian (Caucasus/Anatolia; dark green @ K=11), Basque (SW European Mediterranean; pink) and Sardinian (South-Central and Southeast European Mediterranean; yellow) in Northern Europe.

Dark green is totally absent in Norway and Finland, and almost absent in Sweden and Lithuania. From that it seems that by the time agriculture entered Scandinavia and the Baltics, it was already carried exclusively by local Central and Northern Europeans. However, it makes up roughly the same percentage of the total population from Portugal over Spain and France to Germany. Even in Hungary it is just slightly enhanced although the adjacent Balkans, Romania, and Greece have a much larger West Asian population, and so does Italy. So that looks like there is a basic West Asian element in much of Europe that may in principle be ascribed to agriculturalists from both southern and northern migration routes - except that the southern route seems to have stopped to be carried by West Asians in Italy. (Of course, in addition, Italy may have also received more of that component later on via the eastern Mediterranean). And from the analysis below, even in the countries listed above it is likely of much later than neolithic arrival.

Conversely, given the presence of the "Sardinian" component without the West Asian one, or at much higher rate, in much of northern Europe, I would argue that in Central and western Europe it is *not* due to early agriculturalists. The remaining question is whether the two European Mediterranean components have very ancient presence in Central and northern Europe, or historic origin.

(part 2:) First, the "Atlantic enhancement" of the Basque component becomes apparent by comparing central Europe with the northwest. While Germany and Hungary have a ratio of Sardinian/Basque of >2, and so do most Slavo-Balts, the ratio is closer to one or reversed in the northwest. The Basque component is so tiny in Poland, Lithuania, and Finland that I would pose most of it in most of North/Central Europe is neolithic from "Atlantic" cultural influence; its presence in eastern Europe can be explained by later migrations from Scandinavia and central Europe to there, without invoking a pre-neolithic substrate. But given its proportion to Sardinian in France, Spain, and Portugal, I have a hard time believing that Sardinian arrived there just in historic times (e.g., via Romans). So, wherever Basque occurs in Northern Europe, it probably brought with it a small (slightly smaller than equal) portion of Sardinian. But zero West Asian (Lithuania, Finland, Norway, Sweden)! This is why it must have been early neolithic.

Most of the Sardinian component in Portugal, Spain, and France must be very old, because a more recent (late neolithic or thereafter) arrival from Italy or Greece would have carried with it an about equal amount of West Asian. In fact, given the documented inflow from there since at least the bronze age, likely most of the West Asian in Iberia and France is just from that: bronze age and historic times. That also makes it easier to explain its absence in Basques: West Asian was probably largely absent in that region throughout the neolithic.

Similarly, much of the West Asian in Central, Northern, and Eastern Europe then also stems from bronze age and historic times, and would have brought with it an about equal amount of Sardinian. Indeed, in much of that large region, Basque and West Asian combined are roughly equal to Sardinian, with the Sardinian then introduced with the other two: one in early neolithic times, the other much more recently.

The British and Irish seem to be basically the same people, and the Germans are pretty close as well.

Well the British group could be quite wide and includes samples from Wales and Scotland. You have to remember there's been a huge amount of population movement between the two islands. At least 25% of Irish surnames are non-native in origin. Also about 1 in 4 British have some Irish ancestory (in the last 200 years). As a result I wouldn't be surprised if the two populations have "converged" over time. What would be more interesting is if the British population was spilt into subcomponents (English, Welsh, Scottish).

Previous studies have shown the scots to be intermediate between the Irish and the English for example.

Thanks :-). Very intersting. I'm from the West of Ireland myself (DOD325) with 3 of my 4 grandparents from west of the Shannon (4th from Belfast!).

I see compared to the Irish_D average that I have only 0.08% NE European (average 7.6%), likewise my NW European is over 10% higher then the average. I also interesting enough have 0% Sardinian! What's interesting also is one of the other Dodecad particpants who is from Connacht has a very low NE European compared to average (only about 25% of Irish_D average) and is also showing up as 0% Sardinian.

There's obviously a cline across the country, Connacht in general has always had the least english influence of all 4 provinces. I wouldn't be surprised if the highest "NE European" is to be found within the area of the "English Pale" (Eastern Leinster).

Personally, I would guess that the reason for the remaining Sub-Saharan in all East Africans despite an East African cluster is an inadequate amount of East African samples. Adding the Ethiopian Jews and Maasai might change this.

At Eurologist.Such components are clinal, as you can see by genetic distance. They are informative, but their independence is spurious.The Basque component is only lots of 1st wave plus a little second, Sardinian likewise with slightly more 2nd, West Asian idem, then Southwest Asian, and North African even more, etc. Since Northern Europe got little 2nd wave it is represented there by the Basque element.It is becoming more likely all of Europe suffered near complete population replacement. How do you explain small but clearly valid "East Asian" segments in the British Isles? - complicated explanations are rarely correct versus simpler ones that explain all the data better.

"This may mean that when the Germans invaded Celtic territories, they ethnically cleansed the Celtic men but mated with the Celtic women so that Germans in previously Celtic areas were really Germano-Celtic hybrids. "

Extremely, extremely unlikely. With or without IE language, they were probably pretty close to begin with. Your above scenario may be applicable to an extent, but they were in adjacent territories for who knows how many thousands of years (irrespective of language) thus were of similar stock to begin with. Germans being slightly more Central or NE European, where as Celts were probably closer to Iberians or SW Europeans. Overall very similar though.

My Father (DOD098) and Mother (DOD099) are both from County Laois, in the very center of Ireland. My Father has no known non-Irish ancestry (additionally his Y-DNA is R-L21 M222+, and his mtDNA is H5'36). Based on 23AndMe and a number of different projects he has clustered nearer to the Scandinavians than other Irish, and seems to have possible Viking and German ancestry.

My mother has known non-Irish ancestry - from Northern England and Norman French and possibly French Huguenot sources (additionally she is mtDNA T1a1).

My Father has 13.25% NE European, and that I think comes from the Vikings. The Vikings had extensive contact with Ireland's Northern, Eastern and Southern coasts - but not with the West. That I think explains your results better than English ancestry.

More interestingly, my father is one of only 2 of the 17 Irish_D samples who have NO West Asian component. He has a sliver (0.27% South Asian), and the other NON-West Asian samples has a few percent South Asian - what does this mean I wonder??

Looking at the K=11 admixture, I would say that the both the light green(SW Asian) and dark green(W Asian) components neatly associate with the Neolithic expansion to Europe--Mediterranean via Cyprus, S Italy, C Italy, Tuscany and the Greek/Balkan painted pottery and Central European LBK. Also the light green component frequency would correlate with Y chromosome J1e frequency and the dark green with J2 and J1*(xJ1e) frequencies.The source population for the combined green components probably is somewhere near the Armenian/Turkish/Cypriot populations, since the relative frequencies of light green vs dark green is reflected better in these populations. Interestingly the Spanish and Portuguese samples have almost equal frequencies of W and SW Asian components, like that of Lebanon. This parallel likely reflects the Phoenician colonization of Iberia. The predominant light green component in the Arabian Peninsula, I believe, mirrors a founder effect via the adaptation of the Neolithic to the arid and semi-arid pastoralism in the region.

I think it may be time to accept that the out of india theory is the most likely. Indians moved out, with agriculture, sanskrit, and vedic culture. The out of india theory is going to be the standard soon or later.

It is becoming more likely all of Europe suffered near complete population replacement.

Some are of that opinion, but it is far from clear nor a consensus.

How do you explain small but clearly valid "East Asian" segments in the British Isles? - complicated explanations are rarely correct versus simpler ones that explain all the data better.

It must be really tiny, since it doesn't show up in the K=10 plot, where it would be clearly visible. Whatever there is, the most straightforward explanation is of course from Scandinavia, since Finns have a significant amount of it, and tiny fraction shows up in Norwegians.

Not sure what you mean by "simpler" vs. more "complicated." I see nothing complicated in what I wrote, and I have no clue what you have in mind, instead.

Since I am not one of the chosen race of Dienekes group I have chosen to ignore this run. Other people's results is totally dead boring.

roykings association of J2 an J1e with certain old groupings of humans in modern geographic zones is fair enough. My opinion is biased as I am J1e, but I consider the association of haplogroups with ancient peoples simplistic. SW Asians like Arabians could have acquired their haplogroup J1e prominence in the last 1000 years through restricted marriage practices and certain favored male lineages. An association with the Muhammad/Ali/Hashemi line could have totally rewritten Arabian haplogroups.

In addition, many other haplogroups were associated with the Neolithic movement of peoples from the east even R1b and R1a. There is a sort of religious affiliation that some have to haplogroup J2. It is not based on logic but faith.

Thanks! I am curious as to whether the K's have any chronological implications. It is tempting to think that the lower K's represent earlier population splits. On the other hand, my experience with linguistics leads me to be skeptical of this.

I agree. Basically human variation throughout the world is clinal. The main interruption to that clinal variation occurs between SE Asia and New Guinea. There it is a product of relatively recent southward movement of East Asians.

In Dodecad project, Cluster #31( DOD392, DOD393, DOD081) is essentially Galician, a nationality with their own language and culture, so it's interesting the degree of discrimination of this analysis to the level of specific peoples in Iberia. I have a question for you Dienekes: why not this population is in the iberian cluster? which components do differ? Maybe basque? north-european? north-african?Thanks!

mr rafaelthat is unlikely because the sw asian/w asian ratio amongst italians doe not match the spanish onemr bmdriverthat is unlikely because the sw asian/s asian ratio in india (but also even in pakistan and central asia) does not match the one in europe besides the lack in europe of typical indian mt DNA

Dienekes:“So, Finns appear to (i) have a substratum similar to Balto-Slavs, (ii) to be influenced by Scandinavians, and (iii) with a balance of East Eurasian elements (5.8% at this analysis) preserving the legacy of their linguistic ancestors from the east. At present it is difficult to determine how much of the NE European component in Finns is due to their eastern ancestors who were presumably mixed Caucasoid/Mongoloid long before they arrived in the Baltic, and how much was absorbed in situ.”

Nowadays the best argued view is that Proto-Uralic was spoken in Europe, not in Asia. It is still possible that Pre-Proto-Uralic was spoken in Asia, but it is far from sure. So, if there really is some Asian component in Finns, it might have nothing to do with the Uralic language.

Dienekes:“I propose that a palimpsest of population movements has brought such elements into the interior of Asia: the migration of the early Indo-Iranians from West Asia or the Balkans with a balanced NE/NW ratio”

Proto-Indo-Iranian (= Proto-Aryan) was spoken in the North-Caspian steppes, as there are Pre-Aryan, Proto-Aryan, Proto-Iranian and possibly even Proto-Indo-Aryan loanwords in the Uralic languages. Balkan is out of question.

You really think the NE component in Ireland is largely the result of the Vikings?

An average of 7% is way too high to be mostly from Viking occupation. The most likely, and really the only feasible way, for that to have happened is if there was a huge amount of Vikings settling Ireland. But historically that didn't happen.

I've haven't seen genetic studies on the estimated Viking admixture in Ireland but it would surely not be above 15% and my guess is that it would be at about 1% - 5%

If indo-iranians migrated from the balkans, how would you explain the absence of the south european (i.e mediterranean) component (as well as typical balkanian YDNA-especially the I hg-) in India?

I keep all options on the table. If you notice, Romania has about 1/4 "Sardinian", but when did it get it? Some of it might be related to movements from Italy. Also, there is a weak "Sardinian" component in South Asia. Again, when it did get there? It could be early, or it could be Greek. So, I'm not that comfortable at excluding the Balkans as a potential source just yet, although I find a West Asian source more economical.

It has to do with the deep phylogeny of Indo-European as well. The West Asian option becomes more attractive if there is an early split of Indo-Iranian

I would say that the both the light green(SW Asian) and dark green(W Asian) components neatly associate with the Neolithic expansion to Europe--Mediterranean via Cyprus, S Italy, C Italy, Tuscany and the Greek/Balkan painted pottery and Central European LBK.

It's possible, unfortunately these components don't come with dates.

SPeaking of archaeological correlations, I find the possibility of multiple waves of colonization, some early ones from the Levant, some later ones from Anatolia to be intriguing

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006747

A wave of aceramic farmers from the Levant would bring some "SW Asian", but it is only the Anatolian thrust that seems to have spread further into Europe.

You need to go back and look more closely at the Admixture_11.png image.Then you will see that the main difference between British_D and Irish_D is more Sardinian in the British - looks like double the amount - and very slightly more NE European in the British also, with the Irish having more NW European.

Contrast that with the Norwegian_D, who have about 3 times the NE European than the Irish and about 2 times more than the British, and have NO West Asian, and about 1/2 the Sardinian of the Irish and 1/3 of the British.

As I said earlier, my father clusters nearer to the Scandinavians on every analysis, also he has 5 AF/1 RF (Trondheim) matches in Norway, 2 AF in Sweden, 1 AF in Denmark, 2 AF/1 RF (Oulu) in Finland, 9 AF/2 RF (Pskov, St Petersburg) in Russia.

My father also suffers from Viking Hand - Dupuytren's Contracture - Dupuytren's and so clearly has Viking admixture and most likely Norwegian Viking admixture.

All of Ireland's major urban centers were founded by Vikings, more Viking blood came in the form of the Normans, still more in terms of the Gallowglass (mixed Viking/Celtic mercenaries from the Hebridies and surrounding areas, which were part of the Kingdom of Norway till the Middle Ages.

My advice to you is to read the literature, and study the data - not reject a proposal based on a guess?!

So, if there really is some Asian component in Finns, it might have nothing to do with the Uralic language.

Except for the location. Looking at more recent pre-historic and historic patterns, a putative W/SW Uralic homeland of Finno-Ugric would likely have had extensive contact with East Asians over the millennia before or during language and population formation.

Proto-Indo-Iranian (= Proto-Aryan) was spoken in the North-Caspian steppes, as there are Pre-Aryan, Proto-Aryan, Proto-Iranian and possibly even Proto-Indo-Aryan loanwords in the Uralic languages. Balkan is out of question.

I agree with you 100% - this is pretty much undisputed also because, conversely, the earliest Indo-Iranian languages are exactly the ones that are extremely close to PIE with almost no external impact [that would be expected for a more southerly, or Anatolian location].

Another word to clines and dates: Clines (gradients) are a reality - but don't by themselves offer any additional information or insight. As to (speculative) date tags, an alternative interpretation would be that for millennia after introduction of agriculture to Europe, things got mixed around so much that North European, now, just means "that mixed population" perhaps 3,000 years ago. A valid hypothesis - but in my opinion completely discredited by existing data: by the facts that, after all, original source populations are still easily identifiable, and because the today "virgin" (somewhat un-admixed) populations like the Basque and NE Europe make more sense if admixture took place very recently. Which is at least partially supported by the presence of of huge intra-population differences concerning the degree of admixture.

"empty"&cold&poorly fertile Steppic caspian region as being the origin of the peopling of overcrowded agricultural&warm&fertile India is a very very low possibility.W asian/NE european ratios amongst indo-iranians is:around 8 amongst iranians around 4 amongst pakistanis around 3 amongst indo-aryans around 2 amongst soghdians (i.e uzbeks minus east asian).

The fact that the ratio is so unstable could be a clue (besides the absence of NE amongst archaic IE speaking Armenians who belong to the aryano-armeno-greek sub-group of IE) that NE european component is connected (as dienekes stated) with a secondary (probably R1a1a linked) IE ization of europoid folks in northern caucasus by "armenian" migrants in their way to india (probably via 2 roads: one via iran=>west iranic, one via caucasus=>east iranic, then in Bactria there was the devloppement of dardic and indic, note that iranic is way more diverse than indic)As for indo-iranian being purest IE (still there are at least 4% non IE vocabulary in II) point please see the explanation(s) and the possible consequences of that please see the paper below

"You need to go back and look more closely at the Admixture_11.png image."

I did and I see the the average NE component is Ireland is more than 1/3 the NE of Norway.

If you think most the NE component in Ireland came from the Viking that would require well over 15% Viking admixture in Ireland. In fact it looks like it would require about 1/3 Viking admixture or more...

There is no way that could be feasible.

"My advice to you is to read the literature, and study the data -not reject a proposal based on a guess?!"

Cause the literature really suggests there is that much Viking admixture in Ireland...

Btw, it would be fine if you wanted to argue the the NE component in Ireland comes from Scandinavian but to attribute it to the historical Vikings should be wrong.

"Except for the location. Looking at more recent pre-historic and historic patterns, a putative W/SW Uralic homeland of Finno-Ugric would likely have had extensive contact with East Asians over the millennia before or during language and population formation."

We should however prefer the most obvious explanation. When the "EA"-component is strongest in Northeast Finland and least in SW-Finland and Estonia AND we know that mixing happened between Saamis and Samoyeds in Kola Peninsula and the White sea region and also between Finns and Saamis, it should be the first thing to be checked before the supposed Chinese-Finnish connection. Unfortunately Saamis are not willingly giving samples to check them. IMHO this East Asia connection is pure faily tale when looking to the known history.

At K=3, we observe the emergence West Eurasian, Sub-Saharan, and East/South Asian ancestry in west eurasian people.

It is interesting to note that 39.8% of the Indian_D sample is assigned to the E/S Asian component. So E asian branched off with 39% of Indian ancestry.

At K=4 Caucasoid group has established firmly centered in Europe and distance between south Asia and sub sahara is clearly established.

At k=5 we can clearly see there is no back migration from Mediterranean to south Asia.

At K=6, a North African component emerges. Contrary to the belief of Muslim contact with africa North/Sub-Saharan African contributed to more Europe than Near East.

At K=7, a Southwest Asian component emerges which is highest in Arabia and East Africa. It is clear that this is the main Caucasoid component present in East Africa.vanishes to non-existence in the Northern fringe of Europe, in the British Isles, Scandinavia, and among the Finns and Lithuanians.

Another interesting aspect of its distribution is its presence in Pakistan but not India. Perhaps, in this case, it reflects historical contacts between the Islamic Near East and parts of South Asia.

Aryan Invasaion theory needs to be revisited. or Kurgan theory need to be strengthened. this makes Anatolian theory very week.

At K=8 Now, the South Asian component appears, which swallows up most of the E/S Asian component that previously linked South with East Asians. This component extends a great way to the Near East and eastern parts of the Caucasus. This is the common ancestry link between West and East eurasia which is clearly from South Aisa.

Quite interestingly, the remainder of the Caucasoid component in South Asia that is not absorbed by the new South Asian component seems to be split between the West Asian and North/Central European components, with an absence of the South European component. This clearly shows the contribution of west asia and central asia to Soth asia. Distancce is always criteria. These samples in spread sheet is separated by mere 100 miles for south asia to Central asia.

At K=9, we see the emergence of specific Sardinian and Basque components. Normally this is undesirable, why is that ?. Your login seems ridiculous.

K=10 is particularly exciting because, for the first time, there is clear evidence of structure in the North/Central European component that can now be split, for the first time, into Northwestern and Northeastern ones. of courseFinally Your own words:

Indians have a 1.8 NE/NW ratio. In Pakistan this is 6.5, in Uzbeks it is 2.9, and in the North Eurasian_Ra it is 14.2. My conclusion is that a single migration of steppe people from eastern Europe cannot account for the presence of North European-like genes in Asia.

I propose that a palimpsest of population movements has brought such elements into the interior of Asia: the migration of the early Indo-Iranians from West Asia or the Balkans with a balanced NE/NW ratio, and, the migration of steppe people from Eastern Europe with a high NE/NW ratio. The latter, did affect much of Asia, but it is in India, where Iranian groups did not penetrate in great numbers the lower ratio of the Indo-Aryans has been best preserved.

Aryan Invasion theory gone with the wind.

Whoever or what ever the aryan society takes place it is gradual change in south asia. Invasion is hard to prove again.

Mikej2,IMHO this East Asia connection is pure faily tale when looking to the known history.

I wouldn't go that far. You don't need "Chinese" populations - only populations from central Asia that had contact with far Eastern populations. This may have happened three or four times since LGM. The advanced, younger Dryas Ahrensburg culture may have been the first in a long succession of cultures with partial inflow from the east, today also expressed in east Asian haplotypes in addition to autosomal signatures in Scandinavia.

Study of human DNAs finally rule out any Aryan arrival from the Central Asia into India. Rather the suggested Aryan gene R1a (M17) evolved and migrated out from India about 16,000 to 14,000 years back crossing through Central Asia ultimately reaching Pontic-Caspian area and Russia (Sahoo, 2006; Sengupta, 2006; Trivedi, 2008; Underhill, 2009). Study of West Asian genes also suggests that that there was a human migration from India to West Asia, indicated by presence of Indian genes in the West Asian population (Y-DNA HGs: F*, L1, H (M-69), K2, C5, C*, R1a (M-17). On the other hand West Asian genes (Y-DNA: J1, G, I and R1b3) are not found in India, ruling out migration from West Asia to India. L1, which was earlier suggested to be a marker of migration of Dravidian speakers from Elam region of West Asia, has now been confirmed to be of Indian origin from where it migrated to Iran and West Asia (Sengupta, 2006; Sahoo, 2006).

Genetic diversity is a marker of age of a haplogroup in any area. HG J2 exhibits a genetic diversity of 0.702 and lineage diversity of 0.999 in India (Trivedi et al 2008).

This means an early settlement and insidious origin of J2 in India.

Moreover, there are other DNA lineages found in good numbers in West Asia like R1*, R1b3, J*, J2f, I, G and E which are in total more than 53% population of west Asia. These are virtually absent from India (Sahoo, p. 844). Had people migrated from West Asia to India, these haplogroups would also have arrived into India. This evidence proves that J2 did not arrive from West Asia, because no lineage can ever migrate without other lineages also migrating along with it from the place of origin or expansion. On the other hand nearly all of the Indian male lineages like F*, L1, H (M-69), K2, C5, C*, R1a (M-17) etc. are found in West Asia, proving a definite Indian migration to West Asia. The HIV protective gene, which is found in West Asia, and Central Asia too, is absent from India (Majumder and Dey, 2001). Thus on no account, any migration from West Asia to India can be supported.

Mitochondrial DNA hg T is found in Europe.See clan of Tara in the link below:

http://www.oxfordancestors.com/content/view/35/55/

These East Asia specific markers are in India too. The most likely explanation is that they originated in India and migrated to both East and West. The migration of these DNAs were more to East, hence they became known as East Asia specific markers.

In summary Indians populated central Asia and Europe. The Aryan theory which was created in one of the most racist times of european history during the military expansion and occupation of India itself. Indians stated themselves that it was THEY who left and set up parallel civilizations is now pretty much confirmed, the Indian Aryans invaded Europe, bringing them indian civilization. More evidence also supports the cultivation and domestication of plants and animals independent of any west Asian origins,the Ganges Plain was one of the first centers of farming which spread to east and west. Aryans are Indians.

"In summary Indians populated central Asia and Europe. The Aryan theory which was created in one of the most racist times of european history during the military expansion and occupation of India itself. Indians stated themselves that it was THEY who left and set up parallel civilizations is now pretty much confirmed, the Indian Aryans invaded Europe, bringing them indian civilization."

Ummm, I don't see your point in all this. Apart from all your simplifications you said that the R gene evolved in India a long time ago and spread out from India. The timing meant it was before relatively recent cultural achievements including agriculture and use of horses and chariots.

If you arguing some Indian racial theory of "parallel civilizations" you should know that whether they originally "came from" India or not most the highly intellectual cultures of the Caucasoids such as the Babylonians, Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Germans, and British and more related to each other than they are to the Indians.

The only thing I've seen you argue is that Africa is to humans as India is to Caucasians...

mr bmdriveryou are right about indian civilization+the inaccuracy of the aryan invasion theory, however the lack of typical indian mt DNA in europe looks problematic if we would stick to the out of india theory.

Thus presence of J2b in India is far earlier than in Anatolia, where J2b is seen at the time of Neolithic at 8,600 years back.Another lineage L1, which is a branch of L, is found in India, Iran and West Asia. This finding had prompted some authors to write that L1 is a marker of Neolithic migration to India with Dravidian language, to Mehrgarh and Indus Valley. These authors resurrected the theory of Elamite origin of Dravidian. Sahoo and colleagues (2006) studied the Indian Y chromosomallineages and found that R1a, L1, F and H are of Indian origin.Not only Sahoo’s but all recent works have completely ruled out the possibility that L1 is a marker of West Asian origin of Dravidian speaking people of India. Current opinion is that L1 is of Indian origin and is well distributed in castes and tribes of both north and south India.WhileIndian lineages qualify to be original of India, the West Asian and European lineages qualifyto be immigrants to their present country, barring a few exceptions. Although frequency of Y-haplogroup J2, which is a marker of farming and pottery, increasesbeyond the northwest boundaries of India, its slightly lower frequency in India compared toIran, Iraq or Turkey is not because it arrived into India as a result of some invasion fromWest Asia, but because a large number of Y-chromosomal haplogroups like R1a, R2, J2, L, O,C, F*, H exist in India side by side, which evolved in India over last 70,000 years. Hence theirrelative frequency becomes low (the total cannot exceed 100 percent).The frequency of J2 increases in Tajikistan, Iran, Iraq and Turkey because of founder effect of an arriving population in a sparsely populated area.

When you say "Turks" I suppose you mean Turks from the Republic of Turkey isn't? It would be fine to precise this.

What would be interesting concerning Turks would be to have dna samples from more Turkish people from Central Asia, let's call them "Real Turks" or "proto-Turks" to compare them with the Turks of the Republic of Turkey and with peoples like Armenians, Greeks, Georgians, Greek Cypriots, Bulgarians, to see if there was a "real turkish" mixture in those peoples. I say this because many Turks of the Republic of Turkey consider they come from central Asia like the other Turkophone peoples, whereas historical facts as described by historians like Dimitris Kistikis say that the Turks of the Republic of Turkey are of Armenian, Greek and Slavic origin - people who converted to islam and who became "Turkish". It would be fine to see what genetics say about this.

There's no way the % of Sub-Saharan in Southern Italians are that high if Sicilians aren't considered. I'm wondering why you included Sardinians on their own, but not Sicilians as Sicilians have a different genetic make-up than mainland Italians. I also have doubts about the sub-Saharan admixture being so high in Italians and absent in the rest of Europe. That doesn't make sense at all. Could you explain this if possible? Thanks.

With this study, I'd say that my hypothesis is correct. Most North Africans are generally around 15-25% Tropical African, with the even more (around 35%) coming from Berber groups such as Mozabite and Saharawi peoples and South Morocco (and probably Southern Egypt). Secondly, much of this Tropical African admixture is ancient, and not due to recent neolithic migrations or slavery (except in South Morrocans). This is evident due to the fact that much of the Tropical African component is absorbed by the North African component upon its arrival, which I have observed in countless other studies before this. In Egyptians, the Tropical African ancestry is mostly genetically similar to East African, meaning it is mostly due to ancient interactions with Northeast Africans like Ethiopians or the Sudanese.

I estimate that the least African admixed populations come from Tunisia, North Morrocco, and Northern Algeria (e.g, Riffians, Kabyles, and other Middle Atlas Berbers who apparently were mostly unaffected by the ancient Tropical African admixture) and Libya and Northern Egypt (e.g, Copts, who are moreso connected to the Middle East than Maghrebis).

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.